Pope To Condemn Tax Havens

[jimbms]

OK LDV I take it that as you have such high moral principals on equality and how we should have a socialist society, then when you graduate you make sure you take an occupation that pays about the same as an unqualified manual worker and not want your hard work at university to influence your pay, I also imagine every penny you obtained in grants will be repaid to allow other less privilaged ones to go to university, also you ensure you stay in the UK so you can pay a higher tax rate.

[John]

LDV are you a Manx Resident?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

OK, so you've opted for education that requires funding. If you can't fund it yourself then you can get a grant (thanks to the Manx tax system!). I did the same and went to uni too. That was a few years ago now, but my education is continuing in a way specific to my work through a professional body. My employers are funding this, which is pretty common these days. So it's not necessary to go to uni on a govt grant to learn, but yes, education does have to be funded.

 

Yes you are right, but much is dependent on what type of education you wish to have. I mean, if you want to work in a bank or in an accountants it is often the case that the employer will pay for the training. If you interest and course is more esoteric it is often only a university that can offer the course.

 

You're going on about anarchism again then? I'm not getting dragged into that again. Thanks for the option though.

 

This should be expected, as I don't hold the same values as attitutes as those who see things from a capitalist perspective. Education need not cost anything.

 

Why is my hard-earned money being spent on attempting to provide an education for someone whose capacity for learning appears to be so limited?

 

I don't know, must be hard to bear though. Maybe it's a form of exile that I haven't been told about.

 

OK LDV I take it that as you have such high moral principals on equality and how we should have a socialist society, then when you graduate you make sure you take an occupation that pays about the same as an unqualified manual worker and not want your hard work at university to influence your pay, I also imagine every penny you obtained in grants will be repaid to allow other less privilaged ones to go to university, also you ensure you stay in the UK so you can pay a higher tax rate.

 

Well I think I will ensure I will stay in the UK or hopefully move farther afield, so from the limited thinking that seems to argue that I am a hypocrite I suppose I am standing by some principles.

 

Jimbms - Yes, in a sense I am lucky enough to be a working class person who can gain access to the forms of education I have because I come from the Isle of Man. But as I have said, education should be free for all and never limited by financial constraints. There are enough resources to give everyone an excellent education but in the current system this is not given and also because in a capitalist system the government is unable to accrue enough funds to encourage and then pay for everyone.

Because others are less fortunate than I am in terms of education and pay does mean I have a duty to equalise myself to their position. I am not responsible for the creation and maintenance of the capitalist system that has created such inequality.

 

But this argument is getting a bit silly. Go back to what I was saying to Hboy. If you take this bizarre line of argument that simply because I benefit from the Isle of Man's economy I cannot criticise 'tax havens', then it would not only be my grant that would make me a hypocrite but my whole existence as I have worked, been schooled and brought up on the Island. Purely by the chance of birth I have been fortunate enough to have access to an education and lifestyle that wrongly has not been available to everyone else. But to take the argument that I cannot criticise the Island because I am from the Island is pretty stupid.

 

Though I hope someone can quickly disabuse me of the idea that the main tactic of some Isle of Man residents or just Manxforums posters when questioned about this issue of social injustice is shout 'hypocrite' at anyone or anything without admitting either way whether the system is socially unjust or not.

I mean, fair enough the Catholic Church is hypocritical in my view considering the property it owns which it is not entitled to, how it can lecture other capitalist systems or nations is amazing. But are both systems unjust then?

 

Why are the problems with the argument of saying that tax havens contribute to social injustice? I certainly do not think it is JUST the tax havens who contribute to this sort of national tax revenue problem, but is competitive taxation socially just and why?

[jimbms]

LDV well done you managed to reply to what I said without even answering the questions i.e. 1. do you expect to take a position after graduation that has a pay scale equal to an unqualified person so as to stand by your principals of equality in pay and 2. Will you pay back all you have gained in grants to help some other person get the same level of education. A simple yes or no will do no long winded bullshit required.

[thecoopa]

and will there be a review of the vaticans finances?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV well done you managed to reply to what I said without even answering the questions i.e. 1. do you expect to take a position after graduation that has a pay scale equal to an unqualified person so as to stand by your principals of equality in pay and 2. Will you pay back all you have gained in grants to help some other person get the same level of education. A simple yes or no will do no long winded bullshit required.

 

1. No, I wouldn't expect to do so with my qualification. Why would I? And my recognition of inequality does not require me to 'equalise' myself, how would you this be possible in any case? Do I take the lowest paid job or go on the dole?

 

2. No. Again, why would I? Am I to blame for social inequality?

 

The long winded bullshit does matter because it is quite easy to see that your reasons for asking such questions are based on some misinformed idea about what I should do and be if I am to remain true to my politics. You are ignoring the fact that I live in a capitalist society.

[jimbms]

LDV well done you managed to reply to what I said without even answering the questions i.e. 1. do you expect to take a position after graduation that has a pay scale equal to an unqualified person so as to stand by your principals of equality in pay and 2. Will you pay back all you have gained in grants to help some other person get the same level of education. A simple yes or no will do no long winded bullshit required.

 

1. No, I wouldn't expect to do so with my qualification. Why would I? And my recognition of inequality does not require me to 'equalise' myself, how would you this be possible in any case? Do I take the lowest paid job or go on the dole?

 

2. No. Again, why would I? Am I to blame for social inequality?

 

The long winded bullshit does matter because it is quite easy to see that your reasons for asking such questions are based on some misinformed idea about what I should do and be if I am to remain true to my politics. You are ignoring the fact that I live in a capitalist society.

So let's get this right, you slag other people off for educating themselves working hard and getting a well paid job, yet it is ok for you to do it.

You believe in education for all and industry should finance it, yet you feel ok to take money from other tax payers to fund your education.

I do hope none of the monies you have scounged from myself and other tax payers goes towards booze or entertainment.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So let's get this right, you slag other people off for educating themselves working hard and getting a well paid job, yet it is ok for you to do it.

You believe in education for all and industry should finance it, yet you feel ok to take money from other tax payers to fund your education.

I do hope none of the monies you have scounged from myself and other tax payers goes towards booze or entertainment.

 

How are you getting this impression of my views? Look at it this way, I have to be a complete idiot to sit here, write reams about inequality and anarchism to only say that I want everyone for myself, it wouldn't make sense.

 

The points I have made in the past is that the RICH and WEALTHY are not entitled to their property. Such a belief is the same for everyone in society however, I do not believe anyone has the right to property, only to the possession of things they need or are of specific value to that person. However, the rich and wealthy are at the far extreme of this system of property ownership and certainly those who are that wealthy they do not need to work should have such wealth removed.

This does not mean I have anything against people working in a well-paid job. Such people are workers and I imagine them to be hard workers at that.

The only other thing I have said that certainly got backs up was that managerial authority is completely unjustified. This is not to say that I am ignoring that in most workplaces to get by and progress you do end up in managerial roles, that managers work as hard as anyone else and sometimes harder, or that managers are bad people. But I do not believe management is necessary to run a workplace and I certainly do not think anyone should have authority over another in the workplace.

 

How you have come to see these views as meaning that I am selfish and hypocritical I do not know. Though I would be hypocritical if I were to take on such an authoritative role or get rich.

 

I believe that if we live in a society where people are coming to see education as something that should be shaped by the needs of the workplace then yes, the employers should pay. But fortunately it is not completely seen that way. But I do think that employers have a big responsibility in this current system to contribute to educate as although they do pay for training the first receive fresh employers who have been educated to a level. This is a prerequisite and one they should directly contribute to.

 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the question of social inequality. Should we get back onto that?

[Chinahand]

Education need not cost anything.

LDV - that statement really made me stop and wonder what planet you live on.

 

Lets just for a second get entirely away from money and capitalism and just talk about human effort. Educating people requires effort - quite alot of it as students tend to want to get A grades for doing little work and for their courses to be as easy as possible. For a teacher to overcome these problems and actually provide their pupils with genuine skills is hard work and graft from the teacher. It takes alot of time and alot of stress - a good teacher invests their hopes as well as their skills into their students.

 

Now you seem to think that teachers just do this out of the goodness of their hearts, and if given the choice of going off to the beach and been waited on hand and foot they'd rather deal with class 2B on a Wednesday morning.

 

And why in your anarchist utopia shouldn't teachers, or sewage work operators, or dustmen, or entreupreneurs just say bugger it I'm off to the beach? How do you go about incentivizing people to do things that are difficult and not particularly enjoyable if you are not suitably rewarded for doing it. And don't think entreupreneurs JUST do it for the love of business.

 

Important word that suitably rewarded - I'll guess you'll claim that all other ways of rewarding people other than money have been destroyed by Capitalism - While I believe that Capitalism continually tries to find new and different ways of incentivize people - everything from video game rooms at Google, to vouchers for a tailored suit at Goldman Sachs; and not forgetting good old hard cash, options to buy shares in the future at a set price etc etc.

 

A good definition of economics is how best to meet competing demands with only scarce resources. LDV - you seem to think competing demands only exist under capitalism - your wrong.

 

Getting an education is one demand amougnst many - it costs and people have to make decisions by understanding the costs and the benefits of a particular decision.

 

"Education need not cost anything." - Goodness, what a statement.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Lets just for a second get entirely away from money and capitalism and just talk about human effort. Educating people requires effort - quite alot of it as students tend to want to get A grades for doing little work and for their courses to be as easy as possible. For a teacher to overcome these problems and actually provide their pupils with genuine skills is hard work and graft from the teacher. It takes alot of time and alot of stress - a good teacher invests their hopes as well as their skills into their students.

 

I agree entirely

 

Now you seem to think that teachers just do this out of the goodness of their hearts, and if given the choice of going off to the beach and been waited on hand and foot they'd rather deal with class 2B on a Wednesday morning.

 

I don't think that. I think they do it because they HAVE to work but choose to do work they would enjoy more than others. But there would not be teachers in an anarchist system in any case, well in the way they function today because such authority that they have is also illegitimate.

 

And why in your anarchist utopia shouldn't teachers, or sewage work operators, or dustmen, or entreupreneurs just say bugger it I'm off to the beach? How do you go about incentivizing people to do things that are difficult and not particularly enjoyable if you are not suitably rewarded for doing it. And don't think entreupreneurs JUST do it for the love of business.

 

But you seem to be under the impression that in an anarchist system there would be a lack of motivation. It is certainly true that there is motivation to work in the modern capitalis system and that is greed and that fact that if you don't work you are on the streets or maybe on the dole. In an anarchist society the removal of illegitimate authority, less working hours, control over one's work and one's life, the improved social conditions within the workplace, and the produce that would be available to all become the motivations.

 

Important word that suitably rewarded - I'll guess you'll claim that all other ways of rewarding people other than money have been destroyed by Capitalism - While I believe that Capitalism continually tries to find new and different ways of incentivize people - everything from video game rooms at Google, to vouchers for a tailored suit at Goldman Sachs; and not forgetting good old hard cash, options to buy shares in the future at a set price etc etc.

 

There are other rewards to than money but I tend to see them from the personal achievement that one gets from doing something, though in many workplaces the type of work is alienating so it is hard for this very realisable. You don't own you produce and have little control over how you work so potential for self achievement is limited.

 

The benefits that companies offer to staff are examples of how companies attempt to maximise profit. In a capitalist society wages and money have such a high importance because they play a massive role in how the worker survives day in and day out. The employers main motivation is to increase profit and its interests are completely opposed to the worker. So rather than pay more in wages, which is what workers want they give you benefits.

 

A good definition of economics is how best to meet competing demands with only scarce resources. LDV - you seem to think competing demands only exist under capitalism - your wrong.

 

Getting an education is one demand amougnst many - it costs and people have to make decisions by understanding the costs and the benefits of a particular decision.

 

"Education need not cost anything." - Goodness, what a statement.

 

I agree, but there need not be cost in financial terms. Sorry, being more specific I should go back to saying that education should be free for all.

[hboy]

The only other thing I have said that certainly got backs up was that managerial authority is completely unjustified. This is not to say that I am ignoring that in most workplaces to get by and progress you do end up in managerial roles, that managers work as hard as anyone else and sometimes harder, or that managers are bad people. But I do not believe management is necessary to run a workplace and I certainly do not think anyone should have authority over another in the workplace.

 

Unless of course its you who have [percieved in your own small mind only] intellectual superiority over EVERYONE through an education paid for by their tax money.

 

I like the word hypocrite and I'm going to use it again you are a total [pseudo] intellectual snob and a hypocrite to boot.

[Alias]

What course is LDV on?

[hboy]

What course is LDV on?

 

He admitted he was at Salford in another thread so hardly anything to be intellectually snobbish about

[jimbms]

LDV you still seem incapable of answering a question but it is pointless asking you again due to the fact you will not answer anything that shows what you say to be crap and I cannot be arsed to read war and peace again. Now as for your views sayong nobody has the right to own property, why the hell should I not spend money I have earned on what I want? If I opt to spend my EARNED cash on a better house than some bone idle chav scrounging on state benifits then what has that do with anyone else? I EARNED it therefore I can spend it how I wish and if you are trying to get some sympathy for the scroungers or those you call less fortunate then I suggest you try in the dictionary, sympathy is somewhere between shit and syphallis, because thats the only way the bone idle get sympathy from me.

[VinnieK]

I'm all in favour of an anarchist system and the dissolution of all institutions of authority, just so long as they give me enough time to build up a decent arms cache and develop a private army capable of imposing my will on all the saps dancing around in the commune.