BREXIT and others

Quite so, it’s really tough for Bangladeshis in the delta, and all the inhabitants of submerging islands … happily sea level rise also means that loads of rich people in NY, London, Shanghai, Singapore and elsewhere are going to be upset when their real estate goes submarine. They’re beginning to realise this is a highly likely scenario.

Tampon tax – not only a huge load of nonsense, but plenty of items, even “essential” ones, are taxed at varying rates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11957498/The-campaign-to-end-VAT-on-tampons-is-one-of-the-silliest-the-sisterhood-has-ever-mounted.html

However, it is worth noting that tampons were VATable items in the early ‘70s (before the EU) at the standard 17.5% rate, this was lowered to 5% in 2000, and the government recently won an EU concession to permit tampons to be zero rated. Aaand…. Various pledges but has anything actually happened yet? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/axe-tampon-tax-protesters-gather-outside-parliament-to-push-for-government-pledges-to-cut-vat-on-a7041516.html
Sounds to me like the EU hasn’t been unreasonable, and it’s the home government that is the obstruction. But, wait, that’s the fault of the big bad EU, right?

The biggest lie leave told was not the £350 million to be spent on the NHS (Which turns out to be £22 Billion cost to leave, which is the amount the NHS is underfunded).

The worst lie they told was that Britain was not Great.

The use of great to mean excellent rather than merely large postdates the terminology of Grande Bretagne for the British Isles in distinction to Petite Bretagne for Brittany. See here for much historical detail.

Beat me to that one Gavin. Is european history a particular interest or is this just part of your mental trivia store?

BTW: the link should be https rather than htpps

I am quite aware of mixing the meanings (something leave excelled at with most of their arguments, immigration=migration Schengen=EU, etc.)

But basically they claimed that the UK was no longer great and that leaving the EU would solve that.

The irony is, that there is a serious risk, (if a hard Brexit happens) that the UK will break up Great Britain will be no more and Brexit will mean Britain as in Wales and England.

htpps

Sorry. Slip of the key.

Is european history a particular interest or is this just part of your mental trivia store?

The latter, in that history of words sometimes catches my imagination more than history of people. Some people can see a building and recognize immediately where the stone came from and what its builder’s pretensions were. In the same way it is sometimes informative to see where words come from; to see them stretching through time, changing their meanings and their pronunciations according to forces we do not fully understand. The deeply entrenched class system of the English, and the Great Vowel Shift that started in Chaucer’s time and still continues, may well be related; you can place a person’s status, their education and background, from a few centiseconds of their speech. Vowels may be optimal for this purpose. It leads one to hope that the rise of other media of communication may have a beneficial effect on our society. Excuse the wild diversion of topic!

you can place a person’s status, their education and background, from a few centiseconds of their speech

Good luck with mine. ;-)

Hint: One parent isn’t English. And technically, neither am I.

The deeply entrenched class system of the English,

It is getting simpler. It seems to be more like “us and the elite” these days, where “elite” appears to be defined as “somebody who didn’t spend their entire education dossing around”.
Having gone through the English education system, where the best insults were hurled at those who dared to get above a C grade (and an A in anything pretty much implied sex with the teacher), what I really do not understand is this celebration of stupidity. If you fail, you’re cool. What?

It leads one to hope that the rise of other media of communication may have a beneficial effect on our society.

Doubt it. Two popular forms of interpersonal media are a messaging system that has (had?) a restricted message length – reducing everything to individual brainfarts written in “text” (like “m8” for “mate”, etc); and I can haz cheezeburger. Our species is dooooomed. Dooooomed, I tell you, dooooomed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat

sometimes informative to see where words come from

How many English words actually come from French. :-P

in that history of words sometimes catches my imagination more than history of people.

Definitely. Words evolve. The Flintstones had a gay old time. Now that word means something different. People? The history of people? Nah, forget it. There’s only so many times one can see the same stupid mistakes being repeated before one starts to lose the will…

Something I enjoy is “begs the question”, as if to imply a question that really needs to be asked – as in “It seems this whole Brexit hoo-hah is an utter mess, which really begs the question – why did Cameron hold the referendum?”.
Bzzzt. Nope. :-)

Good luck with mine. ;-)

Hint: One parent isn’t English. And technically, neither am I.

The acquired speech habits from parents are “background” and “education” covers so much I’m not sure I could begin to cover it. The way you construct a sentence reveals things. RP reveals people who know no different¹ and street patois is the same.

where “elite” appears to be defined as “somebody who didn’t spend their entire education dossing around”.

Guilty. You usually learn to move fast and think fast or be very good a blending into the background. Which combination did you use?

what I really do not understand is this celebration of stupidity. If you fail, you’re cool. What?

It’s the dogma of the under achiever. They don’t attempt to succeed because that isn’t cool therefore their inability to succeed in learning is good. Sadly sheeple follow them.

How many English words actually come from French.

Ah the old question. Many, along various other languages. Us Brits of basically linguistic magpies picking up shiny new words wherever we can.

The Flintstones had a gay old time. Now that word means something different.

Now there we have an example of deliberate linguistic deformation.

The word gay is happy jolly etc, the acronym GAY has been deliberately decapitalised to confuse things in a futile bid to avoid the haters.
There is now so much GAY noise that anything else is difficult to hear.

The way you construct a sentence reveals things.

Of course. One who is properly brought up does not suffix “innit?” to sentences.
Especially when “innit?” is used in a way that does not indicate a short form of “isn’t it”. “It’s beer o’clock, innit?” would be correct. “Petrol’s well pricey, innit?” would be correct. “I’m going to the supermarket, innit?” is… yeah. I actually heard an expat say that last one a few months back.

Which combination did you use?

Given I’m introvert to the point of antisocial, I think “blend into background” might fit. Given it was a school for special needs kids and there were a lot of children of forces families (in various states of disrepair), there were some quite colourful characters, so fading away wasn’t so hard.
But, then, sorting out a bully with a fire extinguisher at 3am also helps. A case of “beware the quiet ones” (aka “‘eez a nu’er, ee iz”).
Then you can fade away and you get left faded away. That last bit is possibly the more important.

There is now so much GAY noise that anything else is difficult to hear.

Aaand, we’re back on topic again, as that (with or without either meaning of “gay”) describes the brexiteers, who are currently moaning that they won’t accept price rises.
La dee dah. My mother has to accept a quarter of her p!$$-poor state pension evaporating (rate frozen since when? triple lock likely to be wiped out, and MPs just voted themselves a pay-rise as they’re doing a wonderful job), so, you know, cry me a river an ocean…

I should add – I don’t know whether it’s just me because I’m crazy, but when I’m doing stuff, there’s like this internal narration in my head. Well, just for fun yesterday I decided I was going to do the whole day voiced in an unholy combination of Agent Smith and Lloyd Grossman, complete with intentionally mispronouncing the French words as incorrectly as possible.
Since it was an internal dialogue, it was quite easy to go way over the top, into World Of Ham levels.
What wasn’t quite so easy was avoiding giggling at random moments.

the brexiteers, who are currently moaning that they won’t accept price rises.

My response to the ones I know is “tough sh**, you voted for it” when they respond that they weren’t expecting x, y or z I respond with “ignorance is no excuse, you claim the right to vote now shoulder the blame”

I don’t know whether it’s just me because I’m crazy, but when I’m doing stuff, there’s like this internal narration in my head.

Nah, that’s normal. The abnormal ones are the ones that wander around with a lonely head. There’s nothing in there. Nothing useful anyway.

they weren’t expecting x, y or z

Weren’t expecting? Wasn’t that basically what “project fear” was trying to tell them? But, far easier to dismiss it with a stupid slogan than to, you know, consider consequences…

Didn’t take long for this thread to revert to whinge mode and just shows why nothing positive was discussed about the EU and why the Brexit campaign won because just like those running the Remain campaign the discussion has turned in to a general negative moan.

And there is me thinking we could have stated all the positives the EU brings and we quickly ran out of ideas.

Just shows the power of negative thoughts on any one and why politics in general has gone to the lowest level

Didn’t take long for this thread to revert to whinge mode and just shows why nothing positive was discussed about the EU and why the Brexit campaign won because just like those running the Remain campaign the discussion has turned in to a general negative moan.

Unfortunately the Leave voters I know seem to think it’s like some kind of video game where they can press reset if things aren’t working out the way they wanted.

It’s done. They need to live with it.

Just shows the power of negative thoughts on any one and why politics in general has gone to the lowest level.

Gone?

Unfortunately the Leave voters I know seem to think it’s like some kind of video game where they can press reset if things aren’t working out the way they wanted.It’s done. They need to live with it.

I think both sides have to live with it, the Leave side with the consequences and the Remain with the fact that their abject failure to engage at any level above Chicken Little quotes plus the fact they failed to get the message over about the positives of the EU means that we are out.

I voted to Remain but I think we now need to move on and be realistic in that I think neither to UK or EU officials thought we would be where we are and hence why having a delay is the best to some calm can be had and then hopefully neither party will be damaged by this messy divorce.

just shows the power of negative thoughts on any one and why politics in general has gone to the lowest level.

Gone?

OK sunk may be a better word and I stated in the context that I assumed that the debate would be about the positives but it turned in to another base discussion around the negatives and that is generally where politics is today.

Just shows the power of negative thoughts on any one

I’d love to have positive thoughts. Tell me I’ll be able to continue living here. Tell me I’ll still have a job. Tell me I can go on holiday to somewhere like Italy without it being a nightmare.

You can’t. Nearly half a year has passed and nobody has any answers. Technically the answer to pretty much all of the above is “no” unless the UK makes some effort to look after its overseas citizens. But, unfortunately, the UK’s track record on looking after its overseas citizens is not shining. More like “out of sight, out of mind”. So tell me I have something to be positive about. Go on… tell me.

I assumed that the debate would be about the positives

Why?

Unless you feel there is some viable way of cancelling brexit, there is really no point in talking now about the positives that the EU brings. Such things may very well cease to apply to the UK and all of its citizens in a very short period of time. That’s the cold hard reality.

You seem upset that this discussion has turned into a whinge? A bunch of stupid people who decided to believe the likes of Farage and The Express took part in a referendum that I, as a British citizen, was denied the right to even take part in.
If my whinging is annoying to you then please allow me to be extremely blunt when I say that I would rather die than return to that godforsaken country. I no longer understand what is going on there, and I see now the country I left fifteen years ago as a foreign place barely different to some tin pot South American “republic”.
Somebody stole my country from me. I am no longer British.

There. Clear enough for you?

(posts merged, more logical flow)

I wish I could be no longer British. Unfortunately the British government pays more than half of my pension – and has a powerful influence on the various organizations who pay the rest.

Steve – you probably won’t have a coherent discussion on taxation with Stewart.

I’m sure Mr Pampling appreciates your advice.

He appears to be a believer in the idea that all forms of taxation can be done away with and replaced by a “ground rent”

Not so much belief, as knowledge: there’s more than enough ground rent to cover the requirements of society.

a quaintly Marxist idea that suffers a total disconnect between income and land ownership.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which
is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a
man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to
investigation.” – Herbert Spencer

Although Mr Marx seemed at one point to realise the significance of land as a separate factor of production, he went on to lump it in with capital. Now, regarding “a total disconnect between income and land ownership” – see A. The Poor Widow Bogey,
here: http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/p/index.html

It’s a great way of extracting tax from the wealthy and their castles, but starts to fail when applied to farmers, never mind individual home owners.

Although, in its popular guise (if it can be said to be in any way popular) it is known as “Land Value Taxation” or LVT, it is, in fact, not a tax at all, but a user fee; it’s raison d’etre being that since land (nature) was not and is not produced by man and does not need him to maintain it, no-one has any more right to it than anyone else – all have an equal right to it – and since it is required for all human existence and all human activity, all must have access to it. (see here: http://economicrealities.site88.net/rtsman.htm)
In earlier times this equal right of all to access that which is required for life and well-being was recocognised and much land was held in common and/or divided between members of the community. Over the centuries, rights of access to the commons have been eroded, leaving today only vestiges. Today, in modern society, the vital importance of land – especially since the advent of neo-classical economics (see “The Corruption of Economics”, here: http://economicrealities.site88.net/coe/!index.htm) has been forgotten, or is ignored (it has been subsumed into “capital”) but that does not stop it from being an essential factor of production (which, by the way, accounts for about one-third of total output [which is why I said earlier, that there was more than enough to cover society’s needs]). This one-third of production goes to those who own land (nature), for which they do – what? They perform the indispensable function of owning land (which, remember, was not produced by man.) Now here’s a couple of quotes for you:

“Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many
cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents
are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have
a particular tax imposed upon them.”
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

“Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or
economising. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does
from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the
community and not the individual who might hold title.”
- John Stuart Mill

Since today, dividing-up the land would be impractical :-) we can use LVT to assure everyone’s equal rights by charging those who require unique access a user fee – the annual rental value of the land.

Re: farmers – farmland has quite low rental value (inflated in recent years by the CAP). Many farmers are tenants and already pay rent to a land-lord. Land-owners, on the other hand, would suffer from a removal of subsidies, but any work they did and any improvements they made would go untaxed.

It also fails to take into account “value” in transactions and creations (in other words – commerce).

Yes, you’re right there! Since the rental value of land arises, simply out of the development of society and increasing population, it is the obvious and just source of communal revenue. On the other hand, what someone earns from efforts he makes, either alone or in concert with others indisputably belongs to him, and taxing these earnings is quite simply theft.

The current system, taxation on earnings and purchases, is not a bad idea, per se.

If we want to deter some activity – like smoking or drinking, we tax it:

“Taxes operate upon energy, and industry, and skill, and thrift, like
a fine upon those qualities. If I have worked harder and built
myself a good house while you have been contented to live in a
hovel, the tax gatherer now comes annually to make me pay a penalty
for my energy and industry, by taxing me more than you. If I have
saved while you wasted, I am mulct, while you are exempt. If a man
builds a ship we make him pay for his temerity, as though he has
done injury to the state; if a railroad be opened, down comes the
tax collector upon it, as though it were a public nuisance; if a
factory be erected we levy upon it an annual sum which would go far
toward making a handsome profit. We say we want capital, but if
anyone accumulates it, we charge him for it as though we were giving
him a privilege. We punish with a tax the man who covers barren
fields with ripening grain, we fine him who builds machinery, and
him who drains a swamp.” – Henry George

So, do you want to deter production and trade?

The problem is that there are many little loopholes that can be abused by the wealthy to make their tax obligation disappear. The sort of creative accountancy that can give a company a turnover in hundreds of millions with a profit of maybe a few tens of thousands (hence very little tax). Once those loopholes can be stamped upon, then the system might start to work better.

That isn’t the problem: the problem is determining from whence the revenue is derived; if it arises from ownership of some part of nature (which it often is), then it is not due to productive effort which benefits society, but due merely to the presence of society and ought to be returned to it.

“The most comfortable, but also the the most unproductive, way
for a capitalist to increase his fortune is to put all his monies in
sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for
land, has to pay his price.” – Andrew Carnegie

“There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man’s needs
and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange
of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the
uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is
the political means.” – Albert Jay Nock

If, it be due to productive effort, then why take any inerest in it? All well and good: it is no concern of ours.

And, oh look, the EU is trying to harmonise European tax regimes for exactly that reason – to remove the loopholes. And suddenly we uncover the reason why the rags such as the Telegraph and everything News International were strongly anti-EU and pro-Brexit. It has sweet sod-all to do with patriotism or what’s right for Britain (the two old blokes that own the Telegraph and Murdoch all live elsewhere (Sark & US). It’s simply that they have £££££ and they want to keep it all as far away from the tax man as possible. The EU is looking to sort out taxation loopholes, therefore the EU is bad.

Why would we want to harmonise tax regimes? Have you never heard of enterprise zones?

I’m sure Mr Pampling appreciates your advice.

Well, actually I do. It reminds me to keep an eye open for indications of needing to apply Dowdies Law.

If we want to deter some activity – like smoking or drinking, we tax it:

I’ve not seen any evidence of that with cannabis or prostitution.

That isn’t the problem: the problem is determining from whence the revenue is derived; if it arises from ownership of some part of nature (which it often is), then it is not due to productive effort which benefits society, but due merely to the presence of society and ought to be returned to it.

That isn’t the problem: the problem is determining from whence the revenue is derived; if it arises from ownership of some part of nature (which it often is), then it is not due to productive effort which benefits society, but due merely to the presence of society and ought to be returned to it.

No, abuse of he system using loopholes, exemptions etc is exactly the problem. The source of the income is irrelevant.
If everyone pays their due amount the individual contribution to the total is diminished. When a significant avoider is made to pay in full the effect is to significantly diminish the requirement from the others.

“There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man’s needs
and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange
of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the
uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is
the political means.” – Albert Jay Nock

Well, many people dislike politicians but labelling them as thieves and criminals is a tad extreme in many cases.

Why would we want to harmonise tax regimes? Have you never heard of enterprise zones?

Have you never heard of smugglers?
There was a time when shipping a dozen bottles of spirit and a case or two of beer from France to UK was a customs concern now they have more concern about the weight loading of the vehicles.

Have you not heard of tax dodgers?
If it’s always the same you pay what you pay.

The source of the income is irrelevant.

See here: http://economicrealities.site88.net/chrchl.htm

I’d love to have positive thoughts. Tell me I’ll be able to continue living here. Tell me I’ll still have a job. Tell me I can go on holiday to somewhere like Italy without it being a nightmare.

I do understand and if I was in the same position as you or the countless people in the UK then I guess I would feel more than a little negative.

But the reality is that with major elections in key EU states this year I guess there was always going to be a delay and given that the triggering of Article 50 timeline may depend on some court cases then it may be a little longer before things can commence. This is at best a 2 year timeline in total but I think it will be more and may take us right up to to the next UK elections which may start things all over again.

My bit about a whinge was because I thought rightly or wrongly the discussion could be about the positives and that would lead on to what may be the things best to retain as the other negative things had been discussed to the extreme but I do accept that some times things can be skewed by personal circumstances so fully understand given your situation.

So far the only real positive I can come up with is that it will be good for the environment. The UK constantly dilutes environmental protections.So with us out of the picture, the rest of the EU will be able to do the job they want to.

Of course we will return to being the dirty man of Europe, but overall it should be a win for the world.

I suppose there is also the possibility that people might actually consider the consequences of how they use their votes in future. The vote was so close that there is the distinct possibility that people making protest votes could have tipped it.

See here: http://economicrealities.site88.net/chrchl.htm

Leaving aside Churchill’s tendency to be verbose it still leaves aside the central point.
The simple fact that taxation on land only fails utterly in todays world. Do you believe that Churchill could have conceived of multi-billion corporations who make absolutely nothing and sell you an intangible?
You point at ideas from Henry George who was from an era earlier than Churchill (WSC was, what, 23 when HG died) and even more divorced from the semi-magical electric powered information transfer business.

Your land tax would have the likes of Google and Facebook paying the equivalent of the fluff in my pocket even if you took their global land ownership.

All the suggestions, like Marxism, fail for two reasons:

1. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas
2. Common behaviour in believing some are created more equal.