When writing about the reasons why offshore tax abuse should be made a strict liability offence in UK law last week I what is, perhaps, the most obvious public policy reason for doing so. This is that offshore tax abuse is a direct attack on democracy and as such tackling it has to have the highest order of priority in defending the order on which are current way of life is dependent. I did mention this on Twitter over the weekend and was challenged to defend my argument, so let me do so.
As Simon Schama argued in a BBC documentary last week, the history of democracy, taxation and broader representation are intimately linked. This is a theme that I will explore in The Joy of Tax in more depth, but it would be very hard for anyone to deny the evidence. Wars, such as the English Civil War and the American War of Independence were obviously tax related. So too was the French Revolution and so too many wars for colonial independence .
The demand for a universal franchise has followed a not dissimilar course.
Without tax there would be no democracy, and I think Churchill was right in saying that whatever its faults democracy is about as good as it gets when it comes to a system for deciding on government not only by consent but without recourse to violence and oppression.
There are, however, those who disagree. Most will be found on the Hayekian right wing of politics. Take this, written by Brad Walmsley and published as long ago as 2006 by Margaret Thatcher's favourite Hayekian think tank, the Institute for Economic Affairs:
Simple majority rule results in a tyranny of the majority. Politicians auction taxes in order to buy votes, oppressing the productive and producing economic instability. But simple majority rule is inferior to the historic right to just government. Since taxpayers cannot be said to have consented to taxation under simple majority rule, it represents unjust government. Therefore, the power to tax must be separated from the legislature since it is elected by universal suffrage. Consent to taxation can only be obtained from the taxpayers casting one vote for every pound of tax they pay; you have more say, the more you pay.
His title was "The Corruption of Universal Suffrage: Tax, consent and the tyranny of the majority". The message is unambiguous and clear: universal suffrage, and so democracy, is unacceptable to those with wealth who might have progressive taxation imposed upon them as a result. If in doubt, note this from the same publication:
What time has obscured, reinforced by the propaganda of politicians and state educationalists, is an ugly reality. In fact, the welfare state exists only as a consequence of the non-consensual imposition of progressive income tax. Without progressive income tax, the Welfare State could never have been financed. That the Welfare State arose at all is an unhappy accident. Western governments, towards the end of World War II, decided to retain the high progressive income taxes introduced to fund wartime expenditures, and to divert these revenues to welfare and other state programmes. What represented patriotic acquiescence by the taxpayers in the face of wartime peril was never intended to convey consent in peacetime. Confronting the taxpayer then and now has been the power of collectivist ideology legitimatising discriminatory taxation as the way to redress social inequality in a search for social justice. ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' supplanted Judeo-Christian teachings on honesty and the evil of theft as the popular ethos of Western Society more than half a century ago. However, perhaps the more critical factor has been the unavoidable addiction of Western politicians to auction politics which is the principal reason for the absence of any mainstream resistance to progressive income tax, the Welfare State or, its handmaiden, arbitrary laws.
It is as if the Labour landslide of 1945 had not happened.
And it is as if the Conservative administration from 1951 to 1964 did not have ample opportunity to reverse all that Labour had done but chose not to do so (minor issues apart) precisely because it realised that we could never again live through an aftermath of war like the '20s and '30s.
That such taxes were clearly democratically endorsed is apparently not enough to legitimise them though. They are, is is claimed, in this extraordinary exercise in myth creatyion an accident reinforced by corruption needing to be overthrown by the idea of one pound one vote, which is plutocracy, of course; a place where wealth will rule.
It is my contention that this Hayekian ideal has been used to capture tax havens, where I know from personal experience that such thinking is commonplace. That Hayekians thinking on tax havens is apparent from another Institute for Economic Affairs publication, this time by Richard Teather, entitled 'On the benefits of tax competition' and published in 2005, in which he says (page 81) when commenting upon measures then proposed by the OECD to tackle tax haven abuse:
This is attacking a classic use of a tax haven, as explained in the previous chapter, in which a person resident in (or otherwise subject to the taxation system of) a highly taxed country places his capital in a tax haven where it can earn untaxed income. While there are many cases where the home country does not tax foreign source income (such as the UK's non-domicile exemption discussed above), most Western countries have a worldwide taxation system that seeks to tax the worldwide income of its residents (or all of its citizens in the case of the USA). This tax haven income therefore does not cease (legally) to become liable to tax merely by being earned offshore: it is still liable to tax and the investor has a duty to report it to his home tax authority. In practice, however, if the investor does not report his income, then the home country can have great difficulties in discovering and taxing it, particularly if the haven country has strong banking secrecy laws.
While I am not seeking to condone dishonesty or criminal activity, from an economic perspective this is merely another example of tax competition: indeed, it is often necessary behaviour in order to take advantage of tax havens. Without the willingness of some to engage in this sort of activity, tax competition would be much less effective and therefore reduce the benefits that flow from it for the rest of us.
Teather did, I think, come as close as he could to endorsing tax haven usage, even when that might be illicit, and did so for what are very clearly ideological reasons, stating that if illegality was a necessary condition for using tax havens on occasion that that might be worth it for what he thought were the positive economic advantages that flowed from doing so. But what was that advantage? It was what he saw as the befit of tax competition of which he said (page 10 ):
Tax competition involves allowing sovereign nations, and dependencies with tax-setting powers, to set their own tax rates and rules. Impeding tax competition, through the operation of a cartel of governments that sets tax rates and/or rules, is an abuse of power by government, much more serious than any abuse by monopolies acting in private markets. It is more serious because governments have a monopoly of coercion and, if tax competition is prevented, individuals will be unable to choose the kind of governments under which they live or the kind of countries in which they invest on the basis of their preferences for different amounts of government provided services.
So what Teather is saying is that people should use tax havens to opt out of a system of government that supposedly denies them the level of government service they want. And what does he say of democracy's role in this process? (page 54):
[O]f course, democracy is a very inefficient check on government power; in the absence of a strong (and strongly defended) constitution there is no check on a majority, and there is a great temptation for politicians to use redistributive taxation to build a coalition of support funded by the minority.
He goes straight back to Walmsley's idea that democracy is a tyranny on the minority.
Now, of course, we could dismiss such ranting for the nonsense it is bar one thing and that is that Teather is a special favourite of Jersey, having been engaged by the States and Jersey Finance on various issues. They know his views. They, I am sure, endorse them when using his services. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that they do: the basis on which tax havens are founded is exactly in line with his thinking.
So, the evidence is clear that tax havens are used as places from which to launch an assault on democracy by denying democratic states the revenues due to them in accordance with the democratic mandate that these states hold, which people like Teather and Walmsley (and in my opinion the IEA) seek to deny that they can have. Of course, the aim is simple: these people know that they cannot undermine democratic choice from within states, precisely because of the benefits it brings to so many, which they resent, so they seek to do undermine democracy from without. That's the role that offshore plays.
And that is precisely why public policy interests demand a different policy response to offshore tax abuse than they do to onshore abuse. The loss of revenue is real in both cases, but one comes as a threat to democracy from another place and onshore abuse does not. And that makes them very different, and in need of different responses.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think you are missing the point they are making – wilfully so.
As we all should full well know, governments do try and buy votes with taxpayers money. This money has to come from somewhere, and it will be the minority of voters who end up paying the tax. Just look at Brown’s 50p tax rate, enacted in his last few months of government as an example.
Governments also have the power of coercion. They can force us to pay taxes with the threat of penalty.
If there was no ability to chose where to live, or what tax to pay (as they mention either by governments forming tax cartels or by being unable to leave a UK tax system – which is something you have suggested) then you truly have tyranny by the majority.
You regularly want more public spending, funded by higher taxation on the rich or corporations, who you deem part of the right wing. In simple terms you want to shower this money down on the poor, or other factions aligned to your political viewpoint.
Fortunately you are not in power. If you were I’m pretty sure economic disaster would follow from your policies, but you are a pretty good case study for the tyranny of the majority the authors from the IEA talk about. You use democracy to veil the real truth of your argument – that given power you would use it to punish a minority group to cement your hold on power by offering rewards to those who vote for you.
Respectfully: I got the point
You reiterate the point
It’s repugnant
I would, if in power, punish no one. I would simply ask that those with the ability to do so contribute to the commonwealth – from which all, including those who contributed – would gain
It is unambiguously true that the best off have gained most from higher taxation and the services it has supplied. It is pure spite and malice that seeks to prevent the majority securing any gain, even if doing so costs the best off most, but still leaves them in relative prosperity.
What you are proposing is class warfare
I am doing the exact opposite
Richard, it’s worth observing that Lord Liverpool’s corrupt administration did just what the IEA is bemoaning the failure to do after WW2, and passed the Income Tax Act of 1816, abolishing income tax, thereby ushering in one of the most socially, and economically, injurious periods in British history, rather than, as happened in post-1945. the most socially and economically beneficial period until the 1973 OPEC oil price hike.
“I am doing the exact opposite”
Really? The line running through your various posts is that the (ill-defined) rich should pay more tax, which should be spent on the poor. Who would I assume vote for these measures. Not only that, but it should be made impossible, illegal and punishable to avoid tax in any way – even by moving to another country.
This is class war at it’s most basic, very much the tyranny of the majority spoken of. You even couch it in the language of them against us, evil conservatives, capitalists and neo-liberals who want to somehow crush the poor to protect their interests against compassionate left-wingers and assorted other socialists who have only the best interests of the country and the poor at heart. Nothing to do with power and control I’m sure.
You are unable to even define what is meant by rich and poor. You simply use broad brush strokes and group camps in terms of some conspiracy theory revolving around a right-wing global elite. In real terms, aren’t you and your family part of the 1%? Between you and your wife I’m sure you are earning well over 100,000. Yet I doubt you would (and will probably angrily deny) you are part of the 1% – thus immediately proving counterpoint to your simplistic arguments.
I also understand from your previous posts you believe that all money belongs to the government first, and it allows the people to recover some of it after taxation, and that people should be taxed globally on their earnings just by dint of holding a UK passport.
This would deprive me of the liberty and freedom to chose where I live, and the government and rules (including taxation) of the place I choose to live in, or consequently depriving me of my state. This is tyranny in any qualitative definition.
You also seem to have a very shallow understanding of democracy. In your terms it seems to simply mean using the majority to force changes on a minority – ignoring the will and needs of that minority as you view their desires as somehow irrelevant or simply plain wrong.
Simply put, you are not a democrat, nor do you truly believe in freedom. You are an authoritarian who seeks to bend the will of all people, regardless of their own choices, to your view.
You ignore a simple fact: people will have voted for the laws I would like or they would never be law
I cannot therefore be anything but a democrat
On the other hand you are saying that they should not have that chance and so you are no a democrat
It’s that simple to prove you wrong
And I am also not arguing for what is necessarily more tax. I am arguing that tax owed is paid which is different
And I am a firm believer in the mixed economy, but that was anathema to Hayek
In other words, your views oppose what has been the prevailing modus operandi of western democracies for about 70 years. Do you really think that my defence of that system can constitute support for tyranny? I would suggest you have lost sense of reality if you do
“You ignore a simple fact: people will have voted for the laws I would like or they would never be law”
Indeed. This is also what the writers from the IEA warn of though – the tyranny of the majority. Bribe enough voters with other people’s money and it should be too hard to keep getting those votes – your only risk is running out of other people’s money.
“On the other hand you are saying that they should not have that chance and so you are no a democrat”
Where did I say this? Once again it seems you read what you want to read, and answer what you want to answer. I pointed out that the IEA were saying that democracy can be subverted by the self-interest of politicians, who have control of taxation and spending by using it to purchase votes. Hence the tyranny of the majority.
I am not arguing against democracy, or that people shouldn’t have a vote. I am simply saying that it is an imperfect system which can be abused – not least by rather illiberal, authoritarian political idealogues like yourself.
“And I am also not arguing for what is necessarily more tax. I am arguing that tax owed is paid which is different”
You do indeed argue for the tax due to be paid. However, you also argue against tax cuts in any form, argue for tax rises and new taxes, and also for hegemony of taxation. You start from the point of view that all money belongs to government.
How can we possibly abuse the system of democracy if people vote for an idea that is proposed and if we accept the fact that they don’t?
That’s what democracy is
It is you who is seeking to retrain the choice that can be put forward in a democracy – and that is why you’re plutocratic and not a democrat, as your argument makes abundantly clear
Please don’t waste my time reiterating the same point that proves you are not a democrat again
I have just read your blogs about strict liability offence and how this relates to the submission of the UK tax return, dated 21 August.
Having read that blog I have come to the conclusion that your debating skills are some of the most atrocious I have ever seen.
You are quite entitled to that opinion
Oddly, very large numbers of people seem not to agree
More than 5,000 a day usually read this blog for a start. They must have a reason
But carry on with your own dialogue if you wish, although I note that despite it you still wish to engage, which somewhat undermines your case, don’t you think?
Oliver,
I’m struggling to understand how the standard of Richard’s debating skills relates to the point under discussion. The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.
I think he is referring to the fact the Richard rarely if ever answers the question actually asked of him, preferring instead to answer on of his own manufacture, obfuscating or simply declaring himself correct and anyone who disagrees with him a neo-liberal or similar.
I suspect there is no blogger on the web who has as many readers as I do who a) reads all his comments b) answers as many as I do c) deletes as few and d) engages with those who are clearly time wasters as often
But what the heck? You’ll still talk crap
Eric,
…whereas you, Oliver and Ironman are, I suppose, models of reasoned argument (who to my mind argue as individuals who must each have, as they say, a very personal dog in the fight)?
Also, is it not obfuscating for you and/or you and your fellow travellers to imply that they are not neo-liberal or similar (whatever that might be)?
Richard does not need my protection but I’m constantly amazed by his willingness to engage at all with people who seem so focused on personal abuse, particularly those who so clearly lack the courage, yep you Eric and Ironman, to tell us who they really are.
Nick
These titans of the right remind me of my cocker spaniel, who is really brave when he’s standing behind my legs and the other dog’s already passed by
Richard
I note the quote is not “majority rule results in a tyranny of the majority”;
it was “SIMPLE majority rule results in a tyranny of the majority” (my capitals)
I think Eric and Oliver might rate your debating skills more if they didn’t think you were ducking this.
Oh what the hell, just go ahead delete what you can’t debate Richard.
And the alternative offer3ed is plutocracy – rule that allocates a vote a £
As I pointed out
What is there to debate, unless you’re saying plutocracy is right?
And you lack the whit to imagine any other alternative do you, just like Brad Walmsley?
That makes you well matched then.
I can’t say I’m surprised by you Richard, but then my low opinion of you won’t be a surprise to you.
So what’s your alternative?
Let’s hear it
As long as it adds to debate I won’t delete it
For as long as I can remember reading this blog you have always attacked the same target, the rich and the powerful, based on a combination of your religious crusade for the poor and your ideological hatred of the rich (Tory / neoliberal / lacking in decency etc).
The thin veneer of justification for this has always supposedly been his version of democracy………. in that as long as RM can get 51% of the vote (on any turnout) then he has the democratic backing to enact the policies he wants, no matter how tough….
Of course any serious examination of democracy requires protection for the minorities, even (dare we say it) the rich and powerful……….what RM actually uses as justification is Majoritarianism………which has a long history of abuse throughout time.
The total hypocrisy of this is of course that under any other circumstances he would be dead against majoritarianism……….say if an ethnic minority was targeted or a geographical region (Wales etc) he would scream out at the unfair nature and how the minorities need to be protected………however he has no such qualms about the rich and basically will use any means to get the policies he needs to attack / achieve social justice (delete as appropriate)…..
It seems the end justify the means……
I love the way you create this straw man Murphy
I argue for the mixed economy
I don’t suggest rates of tax above 50%
I haven’t suggest a corporate tax rate above 30%
I want reduced VAT
I would favour lower introductory tax bands and more of them
I’m not actually, necessarily arguing for any more tax to be paid at al – barring by those who owe it and have not paid it
And yet I’m seeking to do all these extraordinary things you suggest – which is absurd as I’m not standing for office, for a start, and am merely exercising my right to take part in debate on behalf of those with average and below average incomes in this country (always accepting the paradox that it is true my family’s is above average: a fact I acknowledge)
Now there’s the hypocrisy in that?
It is about creating a strong, vibrant, mixed economy in which all can flourish. It’s called defending the mixed economy that has been the basis of western prosperity since WW2 and yet I am a tyrant for doing so
I am baffled by how this is such a terrible thing to do
I am defending minorities – those who have little voice in this
I am not asking more than a fair share of those well off (and the evidence is clear: most pay less than those on low incomes as a proportion of income let alone wealth) so not one is being oppressed
And of course I believe the state should protect – but not that it should protect oppressors, and right now if you don’t like me naming the oppressors that’s your problem, not mine, but I will carry on doing it because those you seek to defend are causing untold harm to the majority in this country right now
As usual you answer the question you want not the one actually offered!
I have no problem with discussing tax rates, that is not the problem………the problem is that you want to change the balance of power between the State and the individual in order to achieve your aims for class war / social justice (delete as appropriate).
The claim that you are just defending the meek and the poor is pathetic, the same excuse has been used by every extremist / dictator / loony in history……and when did they elect you as their saviour and representative?
Here is a fact for you (lets get real!)….the rich and powerful have rights as well………even as oppressors (as you label them)……..and those rights entail not having the Laws of the UK twisted and distorted so you can run amok correcting your perceived injustices.
You need more than the thin support of democracy for the kind of assault on the rich you want……..removing peoples rights, even for a good reason (the helping of the poor minority) is still wrong……….and your religious feel good glow combined with your dislike for sections of the population does not allow you to ignore this fact.
No one is going to elect me. I think it very unlikely that I will stand for office
I am contributing to debate
Now would you seek to deny me the right to free speech? It would seem so.
And are my views extreme? Hardly. Read this
http://www.globaldashboard.org/2014/08/25/dangerousradicals/
I’m mainstream: you’re not.
“Let’s hear it. As long as it adds to debate I won’t delete it” Hmm, let’s see if you’re as good as your word.
In the context of this post it really is self-evident (I usually reject that phrase, but here it really is). The key word is SIMPLE – “SIMPLE majority rule results in a tyranny of the majority”.
I offered it to you earlier but you missed it and I think it is too late now to start claiming that is what you meant all along.
Of course democracy is the best form of gov’t (actually of course the worst form except all the others). However, if that were all there was to it there would be no UN Declaration on Human Rights. These rights are universal, inalienable, meaning that NOTHING may remove them; not even democracy. Without this concept there would be no European convention on the same, no ECJ, no United States Constitution and no US Supreme Court. I would heartily recommend study of the United States, its system of governance with checks and balances; a true democracy that appreciates the limitations of democracy.
I would also offer you various Papal encyclicals. These make it clear that Man; not the State is made in God’s image. The dignity of Man is paramount; not the State. Man preceeds the State. The State serves Man and men, ALL MEN. All social teaching flows from there.
So a statement like “And of course I believe the state should protect — but not that it should protect oppressors” frankly makes me feel sick. Human and civil rights are for all or they are not universal.
Not very impressive I’ll admit, but better than your cocker spaniel and, frankly, better than you’ve managed this afternoon.
I’d argue that all those agreements you refer to – and all that church teaching – were wholly and unambiguously on my side precisely to ensure that the state that is out of control – and so by definition removed from democracy as you would wish it to be and so without the possibility of its oppressive power being brought to an end – can be curtailed
I would want nothing else
I endorse all such freedoms
But not one of them would be protected without the existence of powerful states
Like the UK, for example
Which is precisely why we signed up as a democracy with universal suffrage to the UN
Now can you present an argument please. Because all you have done is agree with me
More and more of us can see that the American democracy that you so admire has been largely bought by the vested interests.
Of course you have the right to free speech.
What you don’t have the right to (but frequently do) is:
– Twist the truth to support your objectives
– Deliberately mislead your followers (because many don’t have the knowledge or will to challenge what you claim)
– Misrepresent the aims / opinions / objectives of those who disagree with you (many of whom might actually have similar (high level) goals
I can categorically plead not guilty to any of those
Next?
You frequently misrepresented the goals / desires of those you consider to be your opponents / right wing / neo-liberals etc
You demonstrably twisted the truth about the tax gap and similar issues
Whether you deliberately or accidentally twisted the truth to mislead your followers, only you will know. If you were the ‘expert’ that you claim, then ‘deliberately’ would seem more likely.
You also frequently delete posts that demonstrate the fallacy in some of your arguments.
It’s really not possible to misread the goals of my opponents
And I suggest I have never once mis-stated anything on the tax gap. I have evidenced all my claims, unlike HMRC, for example
And do I have followers? I thought they were readers
The comment on deletions is so petty it’s not worthy of comment
You are guilty of all three of those Richard.
Only, very oddly, in the minds of those who it seems are intent on disagreeing with everything I say
That is not in any way trial by a balanced jury so, respectfully, I will ignore it
You want to contribute to debate……….fine! but don’t say you are representing the meek and the poor and don’t pretend you are on a crusade against the powerful…..you are expressing your point of view, nothing more.
I like your freedom of speech……..I just want you to treasure the freedoms of the rich neoliberals in the same way, not discount them due to your own personal morality / religion / ideology.
You are not mainstream, no political party agrees with your proposals, no Government in the World has followed your policies, you are an advocate for change…….passionate, arrogant, useful….but you are not mainstream.
You see a problem with Tax evasion and avoidance and you want to solve it / prevent it………based on your strict morality (which not everyone shares) and your belief in the good that extra State money will do………unfortunately your way of achieving this challenges freedoms that individuals rightly value.
These freedoms are more important that your attempts to get the States grubby hands on more money, no matter whether you label it social justice. This is in the same way why we do not ban cash to stop theft, limit cars to 70 mph to stop speeding or install police cameras in private homes to stop domestic abuse.
Some freedoms, even those abused, are more important than stopping undesirable behaviour………you would see that if you were not blinded by religious belief and a lifetime of class based political hatred……
If I’m not mainstream why have I advised members of all mainstream political parties?
I’m sorry, but I think you need to read your own diatribe to see just how mad you sound – literally
Ahhhh……the closing down little attack, the definitive reason why you only respond and debate on your own blog so you can control matters.
Usually it is immoral, or hating the poor, or failing to make a point……today it is crazy.
This from a man who states that 10 million voters at the last election are lacking in decency!……I feel shattered by your insight…..
Any who thinks a state has grubby hands and all the other nonsense you wrote might need to carefully appraise the impression they give
Re your earlier comment about dogs, Richard, this bunch of brave people who hide behind concocted identities remind me of dogs but in a different way; they like pissing on other peoples’ rights.
Simple democracy, what they keep on banging on about, can only be based on one man, one vote and most definitely NOT on £1, one vote. What this bunch cannot seem to grasp is that democracy is about electing people who we can trust not to blindly follow the populist view but also to be wise enough to respect the rights of minorities. Surely simple democracy functions best when we elect our leaders in the expectation that they can and will lead us in this way. And, if they don’t, change is precisely what further elections are designed to give us, all of us and not just those who would use their wealth to force the rest into solutions the vast majority of individuals don’t want.
Thanks Nick
Well said
Richard
Keep up the good work. It is clear who the real tyrants are and why I think the day can not come too soon when democracy enters the workplace. Your tolerance is admirable and I don’t know where you find the patience to put with the “tin gods” (yes you know who you are!) that invade your website.
Thanks
Actually Richard at 5.51 I suggested it would be too late to argue that “this is what I’ve been saying” – because you haven’t. At 6.20 you replied that you’ve always said this and all I’ve done is agree with you. Well read back over today’s comments. You failed to make any reference to becks on the State or the undesirability of unfettered democratic mandates. You should have done, buy you didn’t – and I gave you the chance. So my argument was necessary.
Also, would you like to have another go at that first paragraph, it doesn’t really make sense. “And so removed from Democracy as you would wish it to be”: just meaningless abusive garbage. If I agree with you how can I be anti – democracy? Please try again.
Only – and I mean absolutely only – an unfettered democracy can guarantee those freedoms
You are proposing to restrict democracy
That’s inconsistent with those rights you referred to and means you are opposing democracy
No other conclusion is possible
i honestly don’t know why you give these people the time of day.
if you go to Worstall’s blog and read through the comments you’ll see that the same names appear amongst those who spend every day bragging about winding you up, launching all manner of vile personal attacks, wishing you were dead, fantasising about posting dog shit through your letterbox etc, etc like a sad collection of adolescent sociopaths.
in fact i’d like to thank Mr Worstall for so brilliantly highlighting what a disgraceful corner of humanity he and his ideologies represent. if ever anyone was in any doubt about which corner of the debate they should stand in, all they need to do is read that blog.
I have a feeling you’re right
I have just been to Worstall’s blog (not that easy: Google won’t list it any more, considering it offensive). I did note a number of regulars here appearing there
They and the defenders of plutocracy can expect to be automatically deleted here now
Thanks
I think some of your detractors think the UK or the world consists of a level playing field, where everyone has the same life chances and the rich are deserving in some way of their wealth. The poor and oppressed can’t always stick up for themselves
so by definition others have to do so. I only know my own field best and I can assure
contributors that although I don’t always agree with RM on other areas e.g his trust of the State,I can assure them that he does know his taxation and poverty stuff.
Stephen
Thank you. I really appreciate that.
Let’s continue to disagree when appropriate!
Richard
I think this item from the BBC website sheds some light on this heated debate. It is about Norway, a very very rich country, and the social attitudes there.
Extracts from BBC News article “How Norway has avoided the ‘curse of oil’
Hugged by mountains and perched on a stunning coastline of fjords, Bergen, Norway’s second-largest city, has picture-postcard views.
As one of the centres of Norway’s booming oil and gas industries, it is also a very wealthy place.
Yet there are few displays of ostentatious spending – there are no supercars with tinted windows, no designer handbag shops, and no queues of people outside exclusive nightclubs.
…………………….
There are several reasons, he (Prof Alexander Cappelen, from the NHH Norwegian School of Economics) says, why Norway is happy to save its wealth and shrug off the temptations of a luxury life.
“For this kind of system to work, you need to have an enormous level of trust,” says Prof Cappelen. “Trust that the money isn’t going to be mismanaged – that it’s not going to be spent in a way you don’t like.
“As a result of social democracy and egalitarian policies it is a homogenous society and has built up an enormous level of trust.
We trust the government. We believe our tax money will be spent wisely. Once you start trusting that others are contributing their share then you are happy to contribute yours.”
So is Norway rich because of Norwegians high level of trust, or are its citizens trusting because they are rich?
“I think it is both,” says Prof Cappelen. “High levels of trust make economic growth easier.”
……………..
Commenting on the fantastically high cost of living (when using conventional exchange rates) Ms Hartvedt (from Business Region Bergen) says: “We pay our workers a wage that means they have a good quality of life. That is not so much the case in places like London.
“Here we respect hard work, but we don’t believe that the highest paid worker in a company should earn vastly more than the lowest paid.
“This does mean that some very talented people leave for other countries where they will be paid more.”
So, do people in Norway regard themselves as rich? “No, we don’t think of things like that, it’s for the future,” she says.
Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28882312
If all the people in a country bar one vote for the one to be tortured to death on live TV for their delectation, is that democracy?
If 80% of the people vote to enslave the other 20% (who might be defined by lot, by race, by sex or by class, whatever) is that democracy?
If 51% of the population vote to remove the vote from the other 49% is that democracy?
We do not have such a democracy
So shall we stop being silly here?
The same as we do not have a democracy that imposes tyranny on the wealthy, who do rather well out of what we have got
But what about the principle? You are arguing that a simple majority in favour of X is a democratic mandate for X to happen, whether or not it infringes any human rights of those affected. If Nick Griffen had said ‘Vote for me and I’ll chuck out all the foreigners’ and 51% of the country had voted in favour, would that make the action legitimate? If not why not?
This is why we have courts and the ECJ
And even the House of Lords
All democracies need checks and balances
We have them
Shall we be realistic here?
Could I just make the point Richard’s characterisation of what is termed ‘hayekian’ when it comes to democracy and the role of the state is over simplified and to put it bluntly incorrect. In casting the views of Hayek as the epitomy of right wing libertarian zero government, his opponents demonstrate that they either haven’t read him or haven’t understood him. (I’d guess the former). I would recommend a reading of Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty where this very topic is expounded in great detail. In short, Hayek concludes rather like Churchill that democracy is the best system. Although he places this within the context of the importance of the rule of law – something which many loud advocates of democracy simply don’t get. And, Hayek in that book also explained when and why government should do things which is considerably much more broad scoped than he is usually characterised. Hence why many libertarians reject him.
That’s your view of Hayek
It’s certainly not mine
And I have been re-reading him of late – painful as it is to read such banal reasoning
It now seems that perfectly reasonable controls on the rich and corporations is akin to a left-wing dictatorship.
Yet plans that would effectively allow corporations to sue countries if are not allowed to make profits out of state institutions, even though not a single person voted for these corporations, elicits not a peep out of those who are denigrating you, despite the fact that it is massive interference of a country’s democratic right to self-determination to do what it feels best to protect its interests.
This seems perfectly OK to them.
How very odd!
Some points.
First, Stevo!! says:
August 27 2014 at 10:40 pm
“It now seems that perfectly reasonable controls on the rich and corporations is akin to a left-wing dictatorship.
Yet plans that would effectively allow corporations to sue countries if they are not allowed to make profits out of state institutions, even though not a single person voted for these corporations, elicits not a peep out of those who are denigrating you, despite the fact that it is massive interference of a country’s democratic right to self-determination to do what it feels best to protect its interests.
This seems perfectly OK to them.”
I don’t know that we know this. It is a bit of a jump. It is an ASSUMPTION.
So I ask the question to Jim and james G and Ironman and Richard (the one who posted at 5:53 pm) and the Eric who posted on August 26 2014 at 10:50 am:
Is the proposed TTIP deal (see http://stopttip.net/what-is-ttip/), which would give corporations the power to sue governments in special tribunals (not courts) if those governments act in ways which they deem harmful to their profits, thus substituting the power of these tribunals for the sovereignty of parliament is that OK in their view?
If it is, where did democracy go – out of the window? And if it is not OK, then parliamentary sovereignty, and the right of nation states to self-determination, is itself OK?
Second, any discussion of democracy has to include caveats. here are two. One is that any system which is not proportional is a sham. Of course EXACT proportionality is an illusion. But the UK’s system is DELIBERATELY unproportional.
Will those who criticise democracy on this thread now campaign for an improved voting system?
One which will result in paliament more accurately reflecting the currents of opinion in the country at large? Be it Tories in Scotland (who at present have no representation at Westminster at all, or is it one seat, and so do not exist in parliamentary terms even though there are 1 million of them) or Labour voters in the Shires or Liberals and Greens everywhere.
And if they will not so campaign why not? They are the ones who go on about what a real democracy would look like.
The other caveat is that the point about oppressing minorities should not be laughed away. It is a serious point, and I suspect that the concept of Human Rights is just one part of the answer.
However the libertarians and wealth-protectors on here should refrain from comparing an increase in the tax rate for the ultra-rich, or even the suggestion that the ultra-rich should actually pay their taxes at all, with a popular vote to have someone tortured to death on live TV!
Yhirdly no one has pointed out that the rich who live here, CHOOSING not to pay their due taxes here, amounts to declaring UDI. Why should they have a road to travel on? Why should there be an airport to let them get away, which can only exist because of government permissions, regulation, education, planning and subsidy? Why should the police turn up when they have been burgled or why should the nurses care when one of their children arrives in hospital damaged in a car accident?
Can our libertarians please explain for the rest of us?
Daniel
Thanks
I confirm I did and will continue to campaign for electoral reform
The libertarians will not get back on here to answer. It’s a welcome releif to find them absent from the comments needing moderation this morning
Richard