this does not apply to jay. he is not living in an ashram. he has smuggled himself a plot of suburbia thanks to government help and now wants to severely cut federal assistance.Superior Mind wrote:
Is it an evil to be interested in world peace and global homeostasis? And is it an evil to be interested in making a living (money)? Self interest needn’t be exclusive from altruism. The self cannot perform as a force for good without a stable life with needs met. For example: the healer learns by healing themselves first.
I would argue that pure altruism does not exist in the first place, but the rest I agree with. A poor man giving another poor man his last piece of bread is doing neither of them any favors.Superior Mind wrote:
Is it an evil to be interested in world peace and global homeostasis? And is it an evil to be interested in making a living (money)? Self interest needn’t be exclusive from altruism. The self cannot perform as a force for good without a stable life with needs met. For example: the healer learns by healing themselves first.
And no, it's not necessarily evil to be interested in world peace etc. but the means and methods to achieve it can certainly be evil. At the same time, if your motivation is simply to claim the moral high ground, the world needs less of that as well.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
that's all just attitudinal crap from dilbert, it's as wrongheaded and misanthropic as you'd expect any stay-at-home cuck to be.Jay wrote:
Individual freedom. He advocates for technocracy. He despises the fact that the world is not perfectly ordered to his liking, and that people have the free will to do as they please. He's absolutely convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority and considers others to be unfit. If given absolute power he would likely behave no differently than every other absolute ruler in history. He'd probably start by liquidating his neighbors and then move on to other people that have always annoyed him simply by existing, and having a differing opinion.uziq wrote:
who is 'crushed' in dilbert's social-democratic politics?
none of it could be implemented within democratic politics, nor even a technocracy of the worst kind, not unless we returned to the age of totalitarianism and cold war.
the core of his actually practicable politics is basically fairer distribution, kerbing the ultra-rich, less difference between top and bottom, etc. i don't see how any of that involves trampling on people, except the mega-rich's ability to have superyacht pissing contests and to play fast and loose with 10,000s of jobs in games of merger/acquisition and strip-mining.
The only motivation I've heard you express is selfish self-interest.Jay wrote:
Oh aye? They gain nothing from their idealism? They don't perhaps gain a sense of moral superiority that they can then wield as a cudgel in every conversation? Not all self interest has to do with money. In fact, I would argue that people who are interested in money are the lesser of the two evils, because at least they're honest with themselves and the world, and their motives are not necessarily linked to malice. I am, in fact, motivated by more than money, but you disprove of my motivations and thus dismiss them out of hand because they, necessarily, would undermine your own. You are a misanthrope that would force people to live and think as he does, if granted the power. Granted, your vision for the world might indeed be nicer and more egalitarian than the one that currently exists, but it is still dependent on your own use of force to gain it. How is that moral? How is that beneficial to the ones that are crushed along the way? You are purely driven by ego.Dilbert_X wrote:
Actually they aren't, there are still a few idealists and you definitely aren't one.
What use of force is required? Who is going to be 'crushed'?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
One man's freedom is the next man's tyranny no?Jay wrote:
Individual freedom. He advocates for technocracy. He despises the fact that the world is not perfectly ordered to his liking, and that people have the free will to do as they please. He's absolutely convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority and considers others to be unfit. If given absolute power he would likely behave no differently than every other absolute ruler in history. He'd probably start by liquidating his neighbors and then move on to other people that have always annoyed him simply by existing, and having a differing opinion.uziq wrote:
who is 'crushed' in dilbert's social-democratic politics?
We've had this discussion before, would you like your neighbour to 'do as he pleases' by running his stereo at 120db at 3am?
Or setting up a lead-smelting business next door?
You'd be onto the authorities you despise quicksmart to impose your worldview on him and curtail his opinions and existence.
Bottom line is you don't believe in anything and your sole motivation is your own bottom line.
You're a slug basically.
I've advocated for social-democratic technocracy like, you know, the sort of policies you profess to support in scandinavia, not marxist-leninism.
I know its very confusing, try getting away from your goggle-eyed bloggers and try learning about it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-07-06 04:25:13)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
And the parts about him being Super Green and wanting to end all carbon emissions even though it will throw everyone back into the stone ages, and making malthusian proclamations about population growth to the point that he advocates sterilization, or his constant racism and hatred of everyone (except Palestinians for some odd reason). You can't pick and choose the parts you like and ignore the rest. He doesn't care about anything but his own deluded ideas. He has no future.uziq wrote:
that's all just attitudinal crap from dilbert, it's as wrongheaded and misanthropic as you'd expect any stay-at-home cuck to be.Jay wrote:
Individual freedom. He advocates for technocracy. He despises the fact that the world is not perfectly ordered to his liking, and that people have the free will to do as they please. He's absolutely convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority and considers others to be unfit. If given absolute power he would likely behave no differently than every other absolute ruler in history. He'd probably start by liquidating his neighbors and then move on to other people that have always annoyed him simply by existing, and having a differing opinion.uziq wrote:
who is 'crushed' in dilbert's social-democratic politics?
none of it could be implemented within democratic politics, nor even a technocracy of the worst kind, not unless we returned to the age of totalitarianism and cold war.
the core of his actually practicable politics is basically fairer distribution, kerbing the ultra-rich, less difference between top and bottom, etc. i don't see how any of that involves trampling on people, except the mega-rich's ability to have superyacht pissing contests and to play fast and loose with 10,000s of jobs in games of merger/acquisition and strip-mining.
You think the world would be a better place with less rich people in it. I can say, without any shadow of a doubt, that it wouldn't make a lick of difference whether they existed or not. Maybe the world would be a better place, but only because, perhaps, there would be less jealousy and spite in it; it would make no difference whatsoever economically. Or, more likely, people would find something else to hate other people about. Maybe we could return to religious warfare. That would be neat.
You do understand that the vast majority of wealth in this world is corporate stock, yes? You do understand that the graphic you keep posting about the growth in the wealth gap between the 0.01% and the rest of the world has everything to do with the stock market bouncing back and nothing to do with wages, yes? Who should possess that stock instead? Should it be confiscated? Should we redistribute those stocks to the poor? If the poor hold the stocks and begin agitating for stock buybacks because they want their stock to be worth more, does that make them evil? You're trying to take a very complex set of ideas with loads of ramifications and trade-offs and boiling it down to a simplistic moral either-or choice. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Why not?
And as for the corporate mergers, layoffs, etc. those are, unfortunately, part and parcel with the scientific management that social democrats always advocate. You want smart people running the world? Well, smart people generally look for efficiency gains. Efficiency gains and motivating people to work more, and put forth more effort than they would otherwise be willing to do, is how we arrived at the modern world.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
one can perfectly easily pick and choose, considering his social-democratic platform is working perfectly well across most of northern europe at present, particularly so in the scandinavian states.
states which also, i note, are doing much better than america in green economies/agendas, too, without 'being thrown back into the stone ages'.
do you even know what you're talking about half the time?
LOL yes in a more equitable and equal society, people would have to invent religious wars again
we arrived at the 'modern world' through deregulation and the abandoning of state oversight to the 'logic' of the market. central planning and scientific management say nothing about continually trimming the fat for a profit motive. most social democratic states know that the programmes they run have intrinsic inefficiencies and waste; 'waste' is often talked about as a trade-off for public services over private profit motives.
states which also, i note, are doing much better than america in green economies/agendas, too, without 'being thrown back into the stone ages'.
do you even know what you're talking about half the time?
LOL yes in a more equitable and equal society, people would have to invent religious wars again
we arrived at the 'modern world' through deregulation and the abandoning of state oversight to the 'logic' of the market. central planning and scientific management say nothing about continually trimming the fat for a profit motive. most social democratic states know that the programmes they run have intrinsic inefficiencies and waste; 'waste' is often talked about as a trade-off for public services over private profit motives.
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-06 04:45:27)
Cutting carbon emissions would not 'throw everyone back into the stone ages', I thought you were the one who believed there was a technological fix for everything.
Pretty well every efficiency gain has resulted in people 'putting forth' less effort than before since the discovery of the horse you moron.
Perhaps you'd like to go back to reaping, threshing and grinding your own millet by hand, then you'll discover how much effort people had to 'put forth' just to eat.
You don't have even a child's understanding of what you're talking about.Well, smart people generally look for efficiency gains. Efficiency gains and motivating people to work more, and put forth more effort than they would otherwise be willing to do, is how we arrived at the modern world.
Pretty well every efficiency gain has resulted in people 'putting forth' less effort than before since the discovery of the horse you moron.
Perhaps you'd like to go back to reaping, threshing and grinding your own millet by hand, then you'll discover how much effort people had to 'put forth' just to eat.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Which Scandinavian economy? The one that is entirely dependent on fossil fuels production? The one that has the highest personal debt per capita in the world? Or the one that is currently hemoraghing money because it took in far too many refugees?uziq wrote:
one can perfectly easily pick and choose, considering his social-democratic platform is working perfectly well across most of northern europe at present, particularly so in the scandinavian states.
states which also, i note, are doing much better than america in green economies/agendas, too, without 'being thrown back into the stone ages'.
do you even know what you're talking about half the time?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6684
The modern world is headed towards a Neo-Neolithic. Something has to give.Jay wrote:
And the parts about him being Super Green and wanting to end all carbon emissions even though it will throw everyone back into the stone ages, and making malthusian proclamations about population growth to the point that he advocates sterilization, or his constant racism and hatred of everyone (except Palestinians for some odd reason). You can't pick and choose the parts you like and ignore the rest. He doesn't care about anything but his own deluded ideas. He has no future.uziq wrote:
that's all just attitudinal crap from dilbert, it's as wrongheaded and misanthropic as you'd expect any stay-at-home cuck to be.Jay wrote:
Individual freedom. He advocates for technocracy. He despises the fact that the world is not perfectly ordered to his liking, and that people have the free will to do as they please. He's absolutely convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority and considers others to be unfit. If given absolute power he would likely behave no differently than every other absolute ruler in history. He'd probably start by liquidating his neighbors and then move on to other people that have always annoyed him simply by existing, and having a differing opinion.
none of it could be implemented within democratic politics, nor even a technocracy of the worst kind, not unless we returned to the age of totalitarianism and cold war.
the core of his actually practicable politics is basically fairer distribution, kerbing the ultra-rich, less difference between top and bottom, etc. i don't see how any of that involves trampling on people, except the mega-rich's ability to have superyacht pissing contests and to play fast and loose with 10,000s of jobs in games of merger/acquisition and strip-mining.
You think the world would be a better place with less rich people in it. I can say, without any shadow of a doubt, that it wouldn't make a lick of difference whether they existed or not. Maybe the world would be a better place, but only because, perhaps, there would be less jealousy and spite in it; it would make no difference whatsoever economically. Or, more likely, people would find something else to hate other people about. Maybe we could return to religious warfare. That would be neat.
You do understand that the vast majority of wealth in this world is corporate stock, yes? You do understand that the graphic you keep posting about the growth in the wealth gap between the 0.01% and the rest of the world has everything to do with the stock market bouncing back and nothing to do with wages, yes? Who should possess that stock instead? Should it be confiscated? Should we redistribute those stocks to the poor? If the poor hold the stocks and begin agitating for stock buybacks because they want their stock to be worth more, does that make them evil? You're trying to take a very complex set of ideas with loads of ramifications and trade-offs and boiling it down to a simplistic moral either-or choice. Billionaires shouldn't exist. Why not?
And as for the corporate mergers, layoffs, etc. those are, unfortunately, part and parcel with the scientific management that social democrats always advocate. You want smart people running the world? Well, smart people generally look for efficiency gains. Efficiency gains and motivating people to work more, and put forth more effort than they would otherwise be willing to do, is how we arrived at the modern world.
Also Dilbert, people got super motivated to get busy with the domestication of the horse. And harvesting your own millet is not a terrible thing. Do you even eat millet bro?
Last edited by Superior Mind (2020-07-06 04:50:29)
he fundamentally can't understand what 'efficiency gains' means if he thinks it leads to 'motivating people to work more'.
the paradox of working more after efficiency gains have been made is the master-stroke of capitalism. that's because efficiency under a market regime makes room only for more profit-making activity, rather than affording more leisure/luxury, and a reduction in work itself.
we have better technology and science than 50 years ago and yet work more. go figure. it must be science's fault and not, er, incessant profit motive.
the bhopal gas disaster -- classic example of social democracy at work, you see.
the paradox of working more after efficiency gains have been made is the master-stroke of capitalism. that's because efficiency under a market regime makes room only for more profit-making activity, rather than affording more leisure/luxury, and a reduction in work itself.
we have better technology and science than 50 years ago and yet work more. go figure. it must be science's fault and not, er, incessant profit motive.
the bhopal gas disaster -- classic example of social democracy at work, you see.
Yes, stocks are only owned by rich people, not pension funds etc.
Jay has stocks
The govt needs to protect stocks
Its not complicated people.
Jay has stocks
The govt needs to protect stocks
Its not complicated people.
I somehow doubt that.the vast majority of wealth in this world is corporate stock
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
nice rhetoric, though all of those things are complete misrepresentations.Jay wrote:
Which Scandinavian economy? The one that is entirely dependent on fossil fuels production? The one that has the highest personal debt per capita in the world? Or the one that is currently hemoraghing money because it took in far too many refugees?uziq wrote:
one can perfectly easily pick and choose, considering his social-democratic platform is working perfectly well across most of northern europe at present, particularly so in the scandinavian states.
states which also, i note, are doing much better than america in green economies/agendas, too, without 'being thrown back into the stone ages'.
do you even know what you're talking about half the time?
no one claimed scandinavian countries are carbon-free and haven't generated wealth from fossil fuel reserves. that would be patently ridiculous, considering we have just had 200 years of a carbon-based global economy. the point is that they are pivoting and transitioning to full renewable energies without 'going back to the stone age'. a claim so ludicrous as to almost be beyond comment.
highest debt per capita in the world? you mean switzerland? or australia? those other countries which are heading straight to the stone ages? please don't cite metrics if you have no idea what their 'ramifications' are. how's the US's debt per capita doing under trump, by the way?
and, yes, LMAO, sweden is going to hell in a handbasket because they accepted a small number of refugees. you could at least use your right-wing rhetoric in the right context. it's generally understood that germany 'took too many' and annoyed the locals. a large number of swedish refugees accepted since 2010 are now taxpaying swedes, dipshit.
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-06 04:55:22)
OK so Jay is wrong again, the grossly overinflated stock market is worth marginally more than property in the US.
'The vast majority' of wealth is not in the stock market.
https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/
https://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/re … -11769.php
'The vast majority' of wealth is not in the stock market.
https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/
https://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/re … -11769.php
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
the stock market has been trying to deflate and let out all the speculative bad air since, what, the 1970s?
one would sincerely hope that a nation's entire wealth wasn't bundled up in fake numbers on a computer mainframe.
one would sincerely hope that a nation's entire wealth wasn't bundled up in fake numbers on a computer mainframe.
Oh wow, the bond market is even bigger
https://finance.zacks.com/bond-market-s … -5863.html
https://finance.zacks.com/bond-market-s … -5863.html
Do a research noob.Jay wrote:
the vast majority of wealth in this world is corporate stock
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You don't seem to understand that productivity gains, which are the largest part of efficiency, mean people produce more overall. It's why we can live the way we do, and why real poverty is disappearing globally. We no longer have famines, because of capitalism, not despite it. We can communicate instantly with anyone on the planet, because of capitalism, not despite it.uziq wrote:
he fundamentally can't understand what 'efficiency gains' means if he thinks it leads to 'motivating people to work more'.
the paradox of working more after efficiency gains have been made is the master-stroke of capitalism. that's because efficiency under a market regime makes room only for more profit-making activity, rather than affording more leisure/luxury, and a reduction in work itself.
we have better technology and science than 50 years ago and yet work more. go figure. it must be science's fault and not, er, incessant profit motive.
the bhopal gas disaster -- classic example of social democracy at work, you see.
What you imagine as reality doesn't exist anyway. The Scandinavian countries that everyone keeps holding up as the model are not socialist. They learned their lessons when they dealt with stagflation in the 70s and deregulated their economies. They've actually got freer economies than the UK or the US do now. The Swiss are even freer. What they have is a welfare state built upon a capitalist economy. They have extremely high taxes and generous benefits. Until recently, it worked well. A system like that is dependent on people not taking advantage of it, and only using it when it is truly necessary. The Scandinavian societies have functioned as basically larger versions of provincial villages with all the social conservativeness, bigotry, conformity and peer pressure that goes along with it. It's no accident that Babbitt was written about a small Midwestern town full of transplanted Swedes. A welfare state works in a society like that, because to be on benefits is something that is shameful. When it stops being shameful, when societal pressure to get off benefits goes away, you end up with people abusing the system and multi-generational dependency. This is what they are dealing with now in Sweden and they are some people are starting to rethink the welfare state. It's one thing to be nice and generous, it's completely another to be taken for a sucker because of it.
Dilbert, in his way, actually hit it on the head in his post about bad neighbors. Libertarianism can absolutely lead to people behaving poorly. What has happened since the 1960s is that the left has adopted social libertarianism in most of its forms, but has also tried to remove all of the consequences. Personal freedom only works when people are free to fail on their own. When people make shit life choices they need to feel the pain of them. What the left has done is socialize these poor decisions and insulate the people from them. Now there are less and less checks on poor behavior and the pain is felt by everyone instead of simply the individuals making them. This was by design. It used to be that the Christian charities ran services for the poor and they did a decent job of it, but it came with a heavy dose of guilt and religion. When these functions were secularized, the religion obviously went away, but so also did the guilt. It became fashionable to treat the poor like misguided children that would find the right path if only they were educated better, if only more and more services could be provided. You can't ignore human nature. Most people are dicks if given a consequence free environment to work in.
The worst part is, liberals know better. They preach libertinism in public, and practice social conservatism in private. It's why they and their kids get ahead, but the people they have a non-judgemental paternal relationship with keep falling on their face. Dilbert imagines a libertarian world as one where people are free to do whatever they want without judgement. Where there are no consequences. No, that's the current state of the world we live in, and the neo-liberal vision for the world for the past 60 years. Social democracy as you envision it is a paradox. You can't have personal freedom with socialized consequences and have a stable society. Eventually either the safety net or the freedom has to go.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Technological progress came well before capitalism dummy.
How will being an asshole cause people to fail? The reverse seems to be true which is why libertarianism can't work.
Whats the corrective mechanism for obnoxious behaviour besides peer pressure or religion?
Is there a mechanism in capitalism or libertarianism which punishes dickheads and assholes? These systems seem to reward with no sanction.
You don't understand what you're proposing.
How will being an asshole cause people to fail? The reverse seems to be true which is why libertarianism can't work.
Whats the corrective mechanism for obnoxious behaviour besides peer pressure or religion?
Is there a mechanism in capitalism or libertarianism which punishes dickheads and assholes? These systems seem to reward with no sanction.
You don't understand what you're proposing.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you don't seem to understand, jay, that productivity gains throughout most of the last century have not equalled a gain in worker/labour pay, or a reduction in worker labour. it has equalled gains in executive pay and an increase in worker labour. and yet you defend it as benign and say that most of the 'supposed inequality' is down to the stock market. laughable. we're still having to explain to you that trickle-down economics doesn't work like it's the tail-end of the 1990s again.
you are so full of your own shit. you're the same self-deluding fool who was writing personal therapy stories about his 'service' on this forum 15 years ago.
that's exactly what social democracy is, NOBODY has ever claimed they are 'socialist countries' -- except you and american right-wingers, oddly enough. nobody in europe thinks scandinavia are 'socialist' countries. half of europe WERE socialist. we know the difference.The Scandinavian countries which everyone holds up there as a model are not socialist. What they have is a welfare state built upon a capitalist economy. They have extremely high taxes and generous benefits.
like you dropping out of college over a bout of flu? being depressed, useless, adrift -- of productive benefit to nobody? who then joined a federal workfare scheme for a career and free college? so the taxpayer generously picked up and dusted off your life -- but it's the left's fault, still, right?When people make shit life choices they need to feel the pain of them. What the left has done is socialize these poor decisions and insulate the people from them.
you are so full of your own shit. you're the same self-deluding fool who was writing personal therapy stories about his 'service' on this forum 15 years ago.
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-06 06:38:49)
Slowly slowly I think Jay is beginning to understand that social democracy is not socialism after all.The Scandinavian countries which everyone holds up there as a model are not socialist. What they have is a welfare state built upon a capitalist economy. They have extremely high taxes and generous benefits.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
we've only been distinguishing and delineating these very basic political philosophies for him since about 2010.
it's so funny to me that the right-wing will use words like 'socialist' to describe obama but then say 'the scandinavian countries are not actually socialist' at all.
it's like they selectively know what these terms mean.
it's almost exactly like the Eco point about fluctuating rhetoric: the enemy is both strong and weak, according to what suits the argument. they are either definitely sinister socialists or not even true socialists!
it's so funny to me that the right-wing will use words like 'socialist' to describe obama but then say 'the scandinavian countries are not actually socialist' at all.
it's like they selectively know what these terms mean.
it's almost exactly like the Eco point about fluctuating rhetoric: the enemy is both strong and weak, according to what suits the argument. they are either definitely sinister socialists or not even true socialists!
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-06 06:37:12)
And you're ignoring the part where Norway has astronomical costs of living because they've been pressured to tap into their sovereign wealth fund by the people. You're ignoring that Denmark and Sweden, who lack the natural resources of Norway, are now becoming less tolerant and cracking down on grifters because their governments are now under tremendous pressure because of the refugees and migrants who were looking for a cushy landing spot. How much longer is their welfare state going to last unless they regress? Their societies succeeded because of Janteloven, not because of the social welfare state they built up after it was already established. It's not a chicken and the egg situation where there is any ambiguity, it can't be any clearer that the welfare state was only possible because a high level of societal trust already existed, something our societies don't have and theirs is losing.uziq wrote:
you don't seem to understand, jay, that productivity gains throughout most of the last century have not equalled a gain in worker/labour pay. it has equalled gains in executive pay. and yet you defend it as benign and say that most of the 'supposed inequality' is down to the stock market. laughable. we're still having to explain to you that trickle-down economics doesn't work like it's the tail-end of the 1990s again.that's exactly what social democracy is, NOBODY has ever claimed they are 'socialist countries' -- except you and american right-wingers, oddly enough. nobody in europe thinks scandinavia are 'socialist' countries. half of europe WERE socialist. we know the difference.The Scandinavian countries which everyone holds up there as a model are not socialist. What they have is a welfare state built upon a capitalist economy. They have extremely high taxes and generous benefits.
When societal trust breaks down, people do indeed act like complete assholes. I live in a country full of assholes. So do you. So does dilbert. And yet the two of you expect people to not abuse the fuck out of it? There are millions of people like macbeth just sitting there waiting for an excuse to check out of society, to sit at home, get paid, and smoke weed all day. You may say "good for him, who cares" but that works right up until enough people check out and society collapses.
The only two real choices are libertarianism i.e. free markets, free choices, and freedom to fail, or socialism where you are indeed cared for by the state, but the state limits your freedom in order to limit your damage to society. Individualism or collectivism. What we have now is a bastardized worst version of both.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
right-wing rhetoric has spoken about benefit abusers and scroungers since the high-tide of blairism. the actual statistics and figures for £ lost as a % to benefit fraud or cheating is infinitesimally small. want to know what makes up a much larger chunk of loss for the exchequer? TAX EVASION. but somehow it's the little people on the bottom of the ladder, or fractional numbers of refugees seeking shelter, which inflame your imagination and arouse your 'society has no trust and is dissolving' cant. it's never the executives at the top who are skimming off all the profit/productive wealth and dodging taxes who are responsible for social ills, is it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39980793
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39980793
https://www.icaew.com/technical/tax/tax … es-to-33bnWhat percentage of benefit payments do you think is lost to fraud?
[...]
It's £1.10 in every £100.
The figure is an estimate from an official government document, from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), published last December and refers to the financial year 2015-16.
The figure may well be a lot less than you thought, but it's still a lot of money. In 2015-16, total spending on benefits was £172.3bn, which means that £1.9bn was fraudulently claimed.
The fraud rate - 1.1% - rose from 0.8% in 2014-15, and now stands at the highest recorded rate. That may be because more people are "at it", but probably not.
this situation is no doubt an order of magnitude worse in america, where you have a tiny social safety net and huge leniency to corporations.Last year, HMRC reported the tax gap for 2015/16 fell to 6% (£34bn), but has since revised the figures to 5.7% (£32bn). This year, despite the gap increase, the percentage remained at 5.7%.
The tax gap was driven by failure to take reasonable care (£5.9bn), by criminal acts (£5.4bn), tax evasion (£5.3bn), legal interpretation (£5.3bn), non-payment (£3.5bn), error (£3.2bn), hidden economy (£3.2bn) and finally tax avoidance (£1.7bn).
except you're illiterate, and wrong, because most of europe precisely adopts a 'middle-path' and they're doing just fine. scandinavia is not on the brink of collapse. their refugee scenario is not causing a collapse of their national budget. norwegians are paid a dividend of their sovereign wealth fund every year, yes, but the 'astronomical costs of living' don't negatively affect them. norwegians have an extremely high quality of life, even with expensive beer and high taxes, jay.The only two real choices are libertarianism i.e. free markets, free choices, and freedom to fail, or socialism where you are indeed cared for by the state, but the state limits your freedom in order to limit your damage to society. Individualism or collectivism. What we have now is a bastardized worst version of both.
Last edited by uziq (2020-07-06 06:55:54)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3711
Jay is right in the fact that there is few mechanisms left in society to pressure people into doing what is right for their community and of course themselves.
The secularists, Wall Street/Big Business, and Hollywood are all to blame for this. If we had a strong Catholic Church in this country, we would have a stronger more loving society.
The secularists, Wall Street/Big Business, and Hollywood are all to blame for this. If we had a strong Catholic Church in this country, we would have a stronger more loving society.
yeah right, secularism is to blame. we need more pedo priests and children having their heads ruined with guilt complexes to shame and scare everyone into good behaviour. fuck off.